Ability to accept training
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Theres a fundamental truth different people pick different things up more quickly than others. Some are "naturally" good at math and others at sport (and some at both but not nitting). Not everyone's going to react like Mozart to the same music training.
So if you're good at something from the start you're going to get more positive feedback earlier on and you're going to get further and progress more quickly through the same training. But fundamentally yes both the gifted person and the talentless hack are going to need to be exposed to the same tools, techniques and ideas to progress in anything. Mozart wouldn't have gotten anywhere with the piano and orchestras if he'd grown up in a culture that didn't have pianos and orchestras. With his innate abilities perhaps he'd have been Africa's best drummer or a killer on the diggeri doo instead:-)
Another thing. It's important to do things you're not good at for a couple of reasons. One is that some things you're not good at are fun...go to a karoke bar and you won't see people trying to perfect their world class opera voices. You don't even discover what you like if you don't try and life is there to be embraced and tasted. The other is that not everyone progresses at the same rate. It is possible to spend weeks (but probably not more than a few weeks) and make a breakthrough in understanding that suddenly means you improve dramatically even if you're never going to be world class.
However yes, nothing replaces hard work and training. If you're good at something without these you could be much better with the correct focused training.
Your argument actually applies to any applied math too.
From this point of view, entrusting too much belief into a mathematical description of reality might lead to the same religious fanaticism
Any good scientist will, if given solid repeatable evidence, dump a theory or recognise it's limitations. That doesn't mean even the most famous and most praised scientists will always do this. (Einstein certainly didn't when it came to Quantum Mechanics and for the most part his later years were unproductive).
The very big difference between science and religion is that with science, once it's been demonstrated repeatably, you're asked to believe the description of a phenomenon holds true until you find a counter example. With religion you're asked to believe it holds true no matter what.
All of these are axioms have held true in all document human experience or are many are considered self evident.
For example take the idea that a number is always equal to itself. I'm not aware of any attempt to prove this is true, but I'm also not a mathematician.
At some point in explaining how the world works you have to rely on observation. Axioms fit that category in math.
That's still very different to the idea of God where you have no direct experience of this supreme being and are asked to accept on "faith" that he exists and has passed his knowledge to humanity through a group of people or trusted individuals.
I would prefer the word Hypothesis here to Theory. In Science, the word Theory is used to describe something that is generally accepted as True beyond reasonable doubt where
Sadly the distinction between the two in common English usage just doesn't exist. In any case "beyond a reasonable doubt" is subjective. For centuries Newtonian physics was considered beyond reasonable doubt.
Unix is a good software solution for a server environment. It's been a great system for generations to learn to hack on. But the greatest software ever? Lets see. We've been to the moon and back, we've positioned Hubble to track a single region in space for days on end. We've got software that literally saves lives. We have software that simulates flight well enough to train real pilots on.
This is/. though. Watch me get modded down for saying anything remotely negative about Unix.
"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share.
Whenever someone pulls out that line in IT ask them for their bank account details. When they refuse, you've shown they have something to hide and can point that out. If they say they don't have a problem with authorities having that information ask them if they'd mind giving it to a friend of yours if you can find one in law enforcement. Makes the point well. Only thing is I wouldn't try it on your boss or in a politically sensitive situation.
Depends on if she's in an expansion or contraction phase....scientist aren't sure if she's an open or closed model but it doesn't stop them from trying to observe her big bang.
Think about what? Does she have a medical need? Is it documented by a doctor? Then bring the paperwork and the things she normally brings.
Yes you try telling that to a busy airline attendant who's not terribly familiar with a medical condition. My fiancee's had her epi pen adrenaline injector confiscated before (held in the cabin by staff thankfully). She has about 2 minutes to auto inject before she passes out if she has a reaction. Do you want to gamble your life on getting a cabin attendant to see to your emergency within 2 minutes?
If she wanted gummy bears that them being in a sealed supermarket bag would get them looked at less than a ziplock of gel-substance in the shape of bears. Regardless, I'm sure she can identify enough snacks to get her through a flight that aren't liquid or gel substances.
You want to explain the situation to busy cabin staff then rely on their judgement as to whether or not those snacks are a security risk?
For one, if you had small children of your own, you'd know that you could fit hours of entertainment into a small pocket. I've seen two small magnets keep a 6 year old happy for days
If all hand luggage were banned those magnets would be banned too. It also depends on the age and intelligence of the child. Different children have different needs when it comes to boredum and respond differently to being bored. God help anyone with an ADHD child travelling under such a ban.
I'm just telling you that you'd survive the ban.
Good for you. I'm telling you to think for 2 minutes that there are other people for which the ban is more than just a slight inconvenience.
The ban in stupid, the ban will not improve security, the ban is inconvenient, and the ban would not significantly decrease air travel.
We agree on all these things except for one. For some people the ban is inconvenient. For others it may prevent them from taking the trip. Food allergies are one issue, and may be one reason me and my fiancee decide against an international honeymoon. Another guy on/. described his mental health problem in which the added anxiety and not having something like a book to distract him meant he wouldn't travel as he could have an episode. This isn't just inconvenience and people need to stop thinking beyond just their own needs.
No it wouldn't at all, and that's a silly argument. Wherever there is a small minority and catering for them is a significant hassle usually that minority is ignored. Have a look at the disabled facilities on your commute to work, or next time you catch public transport.
Yes, you've just demonstrated we need better science education in schools for two reasons:
1) It is possible to teach enough science and present enough facts that it's not a leap of faith. You can start by citing original papers and supporting papers and teaching kids how to find them on the net. You're not verifying original results for each experiment but you can get to a point where you have confidence in a theory as it would require a large body of work to be falsified with any counter evidence is being suppressed for it to be otherwise.
2) Anyone who thinks that some supreme being literally shouting "Let there be light" and creating the world that way is just as relevant and plausible as the equivalent theory that disects the process and explains each stage obviously hasn't got a clue how the scientific method works. If someone is that guillible and uneducated then a false belief/faith is probably one of their smaller problems.
You seem to be confusing Fact and Truth. To intertwine Science with Truth would be a huge mistake. Leave the pursuit of Truth for philosophy and religion.
HUH????? Truth is a fundamental concept in science and math. For example all the algebraic manipulation you ever do with equations and inequalities rests on the fact that you've proven a fundamental concept is true and can be applied to transform that expression such that the expression still holds true.
There is subjectivity in the world of science. Emotions do come into play. The latest theories are too often presented as fact. These are all human failings and failings of the scientific institutions we create. However trying to separate "fact" and "truth" is a strange notion. In the end a "fact" must be proven to be true. I suspect that you have no understanding of either concept.
Okay how about you have a bit of a think before you speak. My fiancee has extreme food allergies. Not only does she carry a pair of adrenaline injectors, but a policy of buying only sealed foods and checking each ingredient has reduced her incidence of ending up in hospital from once every few months to none in the last 3 years. Do you have any idea how hard it will be to explain why the food you bought from your usual supermarket is needed, or what the restrictions are like if the only airline food you can have excludes a large list of ingredients and must come in a sealed bag? (Before you ask we don't do restaurants period).
Granted she's not the typical case but I'm so goddamn sick and tired of cowards and fools who don't have a need for carryon suggesting getting rid of carry on is a good idea. People live with conditions and have needs that differ greatly from your own. Just because you'd be fine with it doesn't mean everyone else is going to be okay. Tell me do you have kids (or young cousins or neices/nephews)? When's the last time you took them on a 20 hour trip without a goddamn toy? What about disabilities. Ever had to travel without crutches or a wheelchair when you depend on them? A wheelchair's got plenty on it that would make a fantastic weapon if you're a terrorist.
This is the part that I haven't figured out. Why do they keep attacking planes?
- It's high profile which maximises terror. (Fewer people care about a government building being blown up than about planes they and their relatives use). - Images and footage of plane crashes and wreckage are spectacular and horrific. - It targets the rich and powerful (or those who are perceived to be because they can afford to use planes regularly). - Encourage "free" Western governments to impose restrictions on freedom of travel and more quickly implement big brother type technologies. The Western ideal of freedom then comes across as a joke. - To prove that people aren't safe despite their government's safeguards.
They've actually been ridiculously successful with their tactics because we're allowing them to be.
To be honest though I think if we do manage to secure air travel a little better I think we'll see them move on to more train/bus/public gathering bombings. Ships, planes and even monuments are used by less people and are much easier to control because they aren't quite as prolific.
I don't want to scream "WANKING!" but I find I can't help it. Pure pacifism pisses me off...It's like Veganism...Sounds good on paper, but is unworkable in reality.
Yes you'll never eliminate human aggression. Giving up and letting the law of the jungle rule also doesn't work and can be described as "WANKING".
Conflict is a fact of existence. Not even human existence. Just being alive, you're in competition for limited resources, whether it's two elephants fighting over a waterhole, or two countries fighting over an oil field. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it'll always be, until we find a magic way of creating unlimited resources.
I disagree with you. This attitude literally leads to a law of the jungle type society where murder, rape, multilation and torture are all accepted as legitimate. I'd argue that the safeguards and general principles of many fundamental laws that aim at restricting the amount of harm we do to each other are good things. Without these laws individuals expend a lot of effort just surviving and society grinds to a halt. Now it's paradoxically the same with the miltary (paradoxically because you do get many inventions coming from wartime necessity). If a society expends all its effort on waging war, technology and science only advance in very narrow ways and not surprisingly the technology that comes out of war is mostly destructive. For example the fruits of all the bridge building learnt in the last century through a need to move troops can very much be obliterated by the destroying technology of a handful or nuclear weapons.
Your argument also falls over in that other species do not possess our "intelligence" and simply can't make ever more powerful weapons. We're very different to the rest of nature this way. No 2 elphants fighting is going to take out half their species and several hundred others in one fell swoop. Monkeys get as far as hurling projectiles or using crude clubs perhaps. However none of them are going to invent swords let alone gunpowder, high explosives, and nuclear arms.
Article said: Tiziano Mengotti and Rene Tegel are the lead developers on the GPU project. Mengotti is the driving force behind the license "patch," which says "the program and its derivative work will neither be modified or executed to harm any human being nor through inaction permit any human being to be harmed."
Obviously someone just read Asimov. Problem is they never understood the message. It's a lot harder to define what will and won't cause harm than one would think. Asimov had to add the zeroth law. It's also often subjective. What if doing one thing will cause more harm than another. How do you quantify more? etc. etc. Basically they've created a very bad license that's open to extreme interpretation and abuse.
More fundamentally why is it accepted as given that an inventor/writer/creator should have any say regarding how the invention is used? Right to compensation I understand. Right to control it is stupid. It's artificial and unworkable such that it only gives the big guy a tool to bully the little guy. Once something's invented and published I believe it's fair game for all. We should have a system aiming at compensating the inventor for their contribution not restricting the use of something new.
Being a Vegan is nice and sweet, but if it came down to starvation for you and your child vs eating Bambi, Bambi'd be on a stick.
I agree Bambi be BBQ'd. Anyone that says otherwise is self-destructive, and unrealistic. However if your beliefs are such that you think it's right not to eat animals when there is an alternative that's a choice I'm willing to respect. Personally I believe that something has to die so you can live and that should be accepted up front. Whether it's animal or vegetable to me makes little difference despite the argument that animals are conscious. I think we should possibly be more humane in how we slaughter them but the fact is we're ominvores and animals are full
Certainly hope you were joking. On the other hand usually having to use a Mac puts me off sex too. Seems to work for those who love them and those who hate them (which covers most people). Perhaps they should market them as contraceptives.
Welcome to a very poor article on what's been taught in early Comp Sci for many many years.
Any serious developer of business software knows all about this and avoids floating point at all cost for financial calculations. Scientists however do use them carefully since the math they do is usually much more performance (speed) sensitive and the calculations are a little more complex than what tends to be done on the business side (ie _most_ business calcs are relatively simple).
If you're trying to take over a plane it makes sense to send enough people to control the aircraft without being overpowered. Or if you want to blow up specific targets it makes sense to have a backup.
However if you're trying to blow up as many planes as you can on the other hand it makes little sense to expend more than one suicide bomber per plane. You're better off sending the second one on another plane. If either one fails you still blew up one plane. If both succeed you've doubled your terror. Only if both fail do you achieve nothing. So in 3/4 scenarios (none caught, both caught, terrorist 1 caught, terrorist 2 caught) at least one plane is blown up, and in 1/4 scenarios you've doubled your destruction.
Not to mention if you put two on a plane and one is caught the entire plane is alerted to the fact that there are one or more terrorists onboard.
Thanks to these bastards our freedoms are being whittled away. The real bastards are the masterminds who aren't stupid enough to suicide bomb but will use their education and knowledge to turn the world into a shit hole.
ou inform them at the beginning you are recording, then you can assume consent. Otherwise they have the option to hang up....which is exactly what they'd do in this instance. They probably don't have the authority to allow themselves to be taped...And if you don't inform them you've just broken the law.
The least your freedom is going to cost you is vigillance. A real shame is poor people dying because they can't get food or water. This is just life, which can be rough, ugly and unfair sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Theres a fundamental truth different people pick different things up more quickly than others. Some are "naturally" good at math and others at sport (and some at both but not nitting). Not everyone's going to react like Mozart to the same music training.
:-)
So if you're good at something from the start you're going to get more positive feedback earlier on and you're going to get further and progress more quickly through the same training. But fundamentally yes both the gifted person and the talentless hack are going to need to be exposed to the same tools, techniques and ideas to progress in anything. Mozart wouldn't have gotten anywhere with the piano and orchestras if he'd grown up in a culture that didn't have pianos and orchestras. With his innate abilities perhaps he'd have been Africa's best drummer or a killer on the diggeri doo instead
Another thing. It's important to do things you're not good at for a couple of reasons. One is that some things you're not good at are fun...go to a karoke bar and you won't see people trying to perfect their world class opera voices. You don't even discover what you like if you don't try and life is there to be embraced and tasted. The other is that not everyone progresses at the same rate. It is possible to spend weeks (but probably not more than a few weeks) and make a breakthrough in understanding that suddenly means you improve dramatically even if you're never going to be world class.
However yes, nothing replaces hard work and training. If you're good at something without these you could be much better with the correct focused training.
Your argument actually applies to any applied math too.
From this point of view, entrusting too much belief into a mathematical description of reality might lead to the same religious fanaticism
Any good scientist will, if given solid repeatable evidence, dump a theory or recognise it's limitations. That doesn't mean even the most famous and most praised scientists will always do this. (Einstein certainly didn't when it came to Quantum Mechanics and for the most part his later years were unproductive).
The very big difference between science and religion is that with science, once it's been demonstrated repeatably, you're asked to believe the description of a phenomenon holds true until you find a counter example. With religion you're asked to believe it holds true no matter what.
All of these are axioms have held true in all document human experience or are many are considered self evident.
For example take the idea that a number is always equal to itself. I'm not aware of any attempt to prove this is true, but I'm also not a mathematician.
At some point in explaining how the world works you have to rely on observation. Axioms fit that category in math.
That's still very different to the idea of God where you have no direct experience of this supreme being and are asked to accept on "faith" that he exists and has passed his knowledge to humanity through a group of people or trusted individuals.
I would prefer the word Hypothesis here to Theory. In Science, the word Theory is used to describe something that is generally accepted as True beyond reasonable doubt where
Sadly the distinction between the two in common English usage just doesn't exist. In any case "beyond a reasonable doubt" is subjective. For centuries Newtonian physics was considered beyond reasonable doubt.
Unix is a good software solution for a server environment. It's been a great system for generations to learn to hack on. But the greatest software ever? Lets see. We've been to the moon and back, we've positioned Hubble to track a single region in space for days on end. We've got software that literally saves lives. We have software that simulates flight well enough to train real pilots on.
/. though. Watch me get modded down for saying anything remotely negative about Unix.
This is
"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share.
Whenever someone pulls out that line in IT ask them for their bank account details. When they refuse, you've shown they have something to hide and can point that out. If they say they don't have a problem with authorities having that information ask them if they'd mind giving it to a friend of yours if you can find one in law enforcement. Makes the point well. Only thing is I wouldn't try it on your boss or in a politically sensitive situation.
Depends on if she's in an expansion or contraction phase....scientist aren't sure if she's an open or closed model but it doesn't stop them from trying to observe her big bang.
DJ hawking says:
"Fork....fork....fork the creationalists".
Think about what? Does she have a medical need? Is it documented by a doctor? Then bring the paperwork and the things she normally brings.
/. described his mental health problem in which the added anxiety and not having something like a book to distract him meant he wouldn't travel as he could have an episode. This isn't just inconvenience and people need to stop thinking beyond just their own needs.
Yes you try telling that to a busy airline attendant who's not terribly familiar with a medical condition. My fiancee's had her epi pen adrenaline injector confiscated before (held in the cabin by staff thankfully). She has about 2 minutes to auto inject before she passes out if she has a reaction. Do you want to gamble your life on getting a cabin attendant to see to your emergency within 2 minutes?
If she wanted gummy bears that them being in a sealed supermarket bag would get them looked at less than a ziplock of gel-substance in the shape of bears. Regardless, I'm sure she can identify enough snacks to get her through a flight that aren't liquid or gel substances.
You want to explain the situation to busy cabin staff then rely on their judgement as to whether or not those snacks are a security risk?
For one, if you had small children of your own, you'd know that you could fit hours of entertainment into a small pocket. I've seen two small magnets keep a 6 year old happy for days
If all hand luggage were banned those magnets would be banned too. It also depends on the age and intelligence of the child. Different children have different needs when it comes to boredum and respond differently to being bored. God help anyone with an ADHD child travelling under such a ban.
I'm just telling you that you'd survive the ban.
Good for you. I'm telling you to think for 2 minutes that there are other people for which the ban is more than just a slight inconvenience.
The ban in stupid, the ban will not improve security, the ban is inconvenient, and the ban would not significantly decrease air travel.
We agree on all these things except for one. For some people the ban is inconvenient. For others it may prevent them from taking the trip. Food allergies are one issue, and may be one reason me and my fiancee decide against an international honeymoon. Another guy on
No it wouldn't at all, and that's a silly argument. Wherever there is a small minority and catering for them is a significant hassle usually that minority is ignored. Have a look at the disabled facilities on your commute to work, or next time you catch public transport.
Yes, you've just demonstrated we need better science education in schools for two reasons:
1) It is possible to teach enough science and present enough facts that it's not a leap of faith. You can start by citing original papers and supporting papers and teaching kids how to find them on the net. You're not verifying original results for each experiment but you can get to a point where you have confidence in a theory as it would require a large body of work to be falsified with any counter evidence is being suppressed for it to be otherwise.
2) Anyone who thinks that some supreme being literally shouting "Let there be light" and creating the world that way is just as relevant and plausible as the equivalent theory that disects the process and explains each stage obviously hasn't got a clue how the scientific method works. If someone is that guillible and uneducated then a false belief/faith is probably one of their smaller problems.
You seem to be confusing Fact and Truth. To intertwine Science with Truth would be a huge mistake. Leave the pursuit of Truth for philosophy and religion.
HUH????? Truth is a fundamental concept in science and math. For example all the algebraic manipulation you ever do with equations and inequalities rests on the fact that you've proven a fundamental concept is true and can be applied to transform that expression such that the expression still holds true.
There is subjectivity in the world of science. Emotions do come into play. The latest theories are too often presented as fact. These are all human failings and failings of the scientific institutions we create. However trying to separate "fact" and "truth" is a strange notion. In the end a "fact" must be proven to be true. I suspect that you have no understanding of either concept.
Okay how about you have a bit of a think before you speak. My fiancee has extreme food allergies. Not only does she carry a pair of adrenaline injectors, but a policy of buying only sealed foods and checking each ingredient has reduced her incidence of ending up in hospital from once every few months to none in the last 3 years. Do you have any idea how hard it will be to explain why the food you bought from your usual supermarket is needed, or what the restrictions are like if the only airline food you can have excludes a large list of ingredients and must come in a sealed bag? (Before you ask we don't do restaurants period).
Granted she's not the typical case but I'm so goddamn sick and tired of cowards and fools who don't have a need for carryon suggesting getting rid of carry on is a good idea. People live with conditions and have needs that differ greatly from your own. Just because you'd be fine with it doesn't mean everyone else is going to be okay. Tell me do you have kids (or young cousins or neices/nephews)? When's the last time you took them on a 20 hour trip without a goddamn toy? What about disabilities. Ever had to travel without crutches or a wheelchair when you depend on them? A wheelchair's got plenty on it that would make a fantastic weapon if you're a terrorist.
This is the part that I haven't figured out. Why do they keep attacking planes?
- It's high profile which maximises terror. (Fewer people care about a government building being blown up than about planes they and their relatives use).
- Images and footage of plane crashes and wreckage are spectacular and horrific.
- It targets the rich and powerful (or those who are perceived to be because they can afford to use planes regularly).
- Encourage "free" Western governments to impose restrictions on freedom of travel and more quickly implement big brother type technologies. The Western ideal of freedom then comes across as a joke.
- To prove that people aren't safe despite their government's safeguards.
They've actually been ridiculously successful with their tactics because we're allowing them to be.
To be honest though I think if we do manage to secure air travel a little better I think we'll see them move on to more train/bus/public gathering bombings. Ships, planes and even monuments are used by less people and are much easier to control because they aren't quite as prolific.
It's a sick world and it's only getting sicker.
I don't want to scream "WANKING!" but I find I can't help it. Pure pacifism pisses me off...It's like Veganism...Sounds good on paper, but is unworkable in reality.
Yes you'll never eliminate human aggression. Giving up and letting the law of the jungle rule also doesn't work and can be described as "WANKING".
Conflict is a fact of existence. Not even human existence. Just being alive, you're in competition for limited resources, whether it's two elephants fighting over a waterhole, or two countries fighting over an oil field. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it'll always be, until we find a magic way of creating unlimited resources.
I disagree with you. This attitude literally leads to a law of the jungle type society where murder, rape, multilation and torture are all accepted as legitimate. I'd argue that the safeguards and general principles of many fundamental laws that aim at restricting the amount of harm we do to each other are good things. Without these laws individuals expend a lot of effort just surviving and society grinds to a halt. Now it's paradoxically the same with the miltary (paradoxically because you do get many inventions coming from wartime necessity). If a society expends all its effort on waging war, technology and science only advance in very narrow ways and not surprisingly the technology that comes out of war is mostly destructive. For example the fruits of all the bridge building learnt in the last century through a need to move troops can very much be obliterated by the destroying technology of a handful or nuclear weapons.
Your argument also falls over in that other species do not possess our "intelligence" and simply can't make ever more powerful weapons. We're very different to the rest of nature this way. No 2 elphants fighting is going to take out half their species and several hundred others in one fell swoop. Monkeys get as far as hurling projectiles or using crude clubs perhaps. However none of them are going to invent swords let alone gunpowder, high explosives, and nuclear arms.
Article said:
Tiziano Mengotti and Rene Tegel are the lead developers on the GPU project. Mengotti is the driving force behind the license "patch," which says "the program and its derivative work will neither be modified or executed to harm any human being nor through inaction permit any human being to be harmed."
Obviously someone just read Asimov. Problem is they never understood the message. It's a lot harder to define what will and won't cause harm than one would think. Asimov had to add the zeroth law. It's also often subjective. What if doing one thing will cause more harm than another. How do you quantify more? etc. etc. Basically they've created a very bad license that's open to extreme interpretation and abuse.
More fundamentally why is it accepted as given that an inventor/writer/creator should have any say regarding how the invention is used? Right to compensation I understand. Right to control it is stupid. It's artificial and unworkable such that it only gives the big guy a tool to bully the little guy. Once something's invented and published I believe it's fair game for all. We should have a system aiming at compensating the inventor for their contribution not restricting the use of something new.
Being a Vegan is nice and sweet, but if it came down to starvation for you and your child vs eating Bambi, Bambi'd be on a stick.
I agree Bambi be BBQ'd. Anyone that says otherwise is self-destructive, and unrealistic. However if your beliefs are such that you think it's right not to eat animals when there is an alternative that's a choice I'm willing to respect. Personally I believe that something has to die so you can live and that should be accepted up front. Whether it's animal or vegetable to me makes little difference despite the argument that animals are conscious. I think we should possibly be more humane in how we slaughter them but the fact is we're ominvores and animals are full
Certainly hope you were joking. On the other hand usually having to use a Mac puts me off sex too. Seems to work for those who love them and those who hate them (which covers most people). Perhaps they should market them as contraceptives.
the first of these, imaginatively titled DirectX 10.1, will be the first of these ...I know you had a point there somewhere...
Welcome to a very poor article on what's been taught in early Comp Sci for many many years.
Any serious developer of business software knows all about this and avoids floating point at all cost for financial calculations. Scientists however do use them carefully since the math they do is usually much more performance (speed) sensitive and the calculations are a little more complex than what tends to be done on the business side (ie _most_ business calcs are relatively simple).
You're thinking in terms of specific targets.
If you're trying to take over a plane it makes sense to send enough people to control the aircraft without being overpowered. Or if you want to blow up specific targets it makes sense to have a backup.
However if you're trying to blow up as many planes as you can on the other hand it makes little sense to expend more than one suicide bomber per plane. You're better off sending the second one on another plane. If either one fails you still blew up one plane. If both succeed you've doubled your terror. Only if both fail do you achieve nothing. So in 3/4 scenarios (none caught, both caught, terrorist 1 caught, terrorist 2 caught) at least one plane is blown up, and in 1/4 scenarios you've doubled your destruction.
Not to mention if you put two on a plane and one is caught the entire plane is alerted to the fact that there are one or more terrorists onboard.
Thanks to these bastards our freedoms are being whittled away. The real bastards are the masterminds who aren't stupid enough to suicide bomb but will use their education and knowledge to turn the world into a shit hole.
Female players have been known to play male characters to avoid being hit on. Who wants to be hit on in a game while in the middle of a battle?
Clearly you have never seen an episode of Xena. Oh wait strike that, neither have I. You can't proove it!
it might be a little late to patent that idea!
:-)
What just because there's that pesky prior art? That never stopped anyone with buff lawyers
ou inform them at the beginning you are recording, then you can assume consent. Otherwise they have the option to hang up. ...which is exactly what they'd do in this instance. They probably don't have the authority to allow themselves to be taped...And if you don't inform them you've just broken the law.
Didn't Einstein say "God does not play Sudoku"?
In most countries taping a conversation without consent is a crime.
The least your freedom is going to cost you is vigillance. A real shame is poor people dying because they can't get food or water. This is just life, which can be rough, ugly and unfair sometimes.